[PaQSO] Request

[emiske at comcast.net]

RE: Goody K3NG comment:

> >Why is there always a need to "stop the discussions...." of issues here? 
> 
> Who's trying to put an end to discussions? On the contrary, I've 
> probably added more fuel to the fire and perpetuated the discussion.

I was responding to the following comment in your posting of 10/30/2007 @ 7:43 pm when you said:

"If it will stop the discussions we have each year over QRP multipliers please by all means DO IT"

Sorry if I mis-understood or took it out of context.

> I do feel that there has historically been a movement to "stop the 
> change requests and ideas" on this reflector, often in the form of "if 
> it ain't broke, don't fix it" and more recently "what about the 
> software?". I think this is detrimental to the long term health of the 
> Party. If anything, these are more of a wet blank on discussions here. 

Could not agree more. "Ain't broke/don't fix it?" I'm my best Spanish I say "El Toro Poopoo". Change is, generally, a good thing. And I don't see anyone here advocating "wholesale" change.

> I think the crux of the differences in opinion in the Party is why each 
> person participates. Some participate with a goal of hard core 
> contesting and some see it at the other end of the spectrum as a casual 
> operating event. Arguably, it's somewhere in the middle. 

I stand by my statement that it is a contest, and contests are meant to be won. Absolutely, some people participate  with goals in mind other than winning an award or certificate, and thank goodness they do or us "serious" "out for blood" "hardcore" "cut throat" contesters would run out of stations to work pertty darn early in the day.

A toast: "To lively discussion and opinion swapping".

Ed/WA3SES
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Goody K3NG <goody.k3ng at gmail.com> 

> emiske at comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> >Why is there always a need to "stop the discussions...." of issues here? 
> 
> Who's trying to put an end to discussions? On the contrary, I've 
> probably added more fuel to the fire and perpetuated the discussion. 
> William essentially claimed QRP was easy, QRO takes more skills, 
> everyone else was doing the work, etc. Evidence and observations fly in 
> the face of several of these claims. He and others are welcome to 
> discuss the viewpoints further and I'll continue to rebut them as 
> needed. Mike can stop the discussion if he feels like it's necessary, 
> however we haven't gotten to the point where the discussion is unproductive. 
> 
> I do feel that there has historically been a movement to "stop the 
> change requests and ideas" on this reflector, often in the form of "if 
> it ain't broke, don't fix it" and more recently "what about the 
> software?". I think this is detrimental to the long term health of the 
> Party. If anything, these are more of a wet blank on discussions here. 
> 
> Your comments on CW scoring have merit. However, my goal wasn't to 
> suggest that we should change CW and digital scoring, but just to draw 
> some parallels with the unfairness that some see in the QRP multiplier. 
> Perhaps I should have noted it as just a debate mechanism and not a 
> request for consideration. I don't consider digital evil, by the way. 
> This was more a commentary/comedic relief on past events. 
> 
> > The very nature of a contest is to try to win......as if that needed 
> to be stated. 
> 
> I think the crux of the differences in opinion in the Party is why each 
> person participates. Some participate with a goal of hard core 
> contesting and some see it at the other end of the spectrum as a casual 
> operating event. Arguably, it's somewhere in the middle. 
> 
> >I have my opinion, you have yours Goody, others have theirs. 
> Discussing them is not a bad thing. 
> 
> I never said it was. Please don't confuse disagreement or counterpoints 
> with wanting to stop discussions. The statement I made that you've 
> taken issue with was more about the irony of the QRO versus QRP bonus 
> points discussion. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that getting 
> beat by a QRP station using the multiplier is an evil thing. If someone 
> is a hardcore contester, the matter of running QRO or QRP is trivial. 
> It's all about the points. Either the QRP bonus is formidable 
> competition but QRO continues to be a better (point) choice, or QRP and 
> its multiplier is an attractive option for increasing a score. If 
> contesters feel the QRP bonus is an unfair advantage, "contester logic" 
> would naturally trigger them to run QRP. The question that begs asking 
> is, why don't more contesters run QRP in the Party? I think the answer 
> to the QRP multiplier question which inevitably comes up each year, lies 
> there. 
> 
> 73 
> Goody 
> 
> -- 
> Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PaQSO mailing list 
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso